Search Forums

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Questions to be considered:

I’m going to switch tracks for a bit…a move that should head us in the direction the overall concept I am talking about should go. I am going to do this in a series of questions I’d like to be considered by anyone interested…and for them to offer comments. The questions, for the sake of this thread, apply ONLY to the United States.

I am asking your opinions on these things. Other stuff will crop up for you during your consideration of the questions, but do try to at least cover the question itself.

First (a two parter):

Do we have a sufficient food supply so that EVERYONE could easily have two reasonably, nutritious meals (say, a good breakfast and a good dinner) available every day?

And if everyone had those two reasonable, nutritious meals every day would that mean that the “very well off” would have to make do with less in the way of food?

Second (they're all two parters):

Can we easily produce enough clothing (shirts, pants, dresses, underwear, socks, shoes, coats, and the like) so that EVERYONE could be fully and functionally clothed?

And if everyone were fully and functionally clothed…would that mean that the “very well off” would have to make do with less in the way of clothing?

Third:

Can we easily produce enough in the way of physicians, dentists, nurses, medical specialists, medical facilities, and medical equipment to insure that EVERYONE have sufficient medical care?

And if everyone had sufficient medical care…would that mean that the “very well off” would have to make do with less in the way of medical care?

Fourth:

Can we easily provide sufficient teachers, professors, researchers, and educational facilities so that EVERYONE can obtain a decent education if they desire?

And if everyone who wants one were to obtain a decent education…would that mean that the “very well off” would have to make do with a lesser education?

Fifth:

Can we easily provide a reasonable (not luxurious) means of transportation (both private and public) for EVERYONE who needs and wants such transportation?

If we did provide a means of transportation for everyone…would that mean that the “very well off” would have to make do with lesser transportation in any way?

Sixth:
Can we easily provide a means of access to communication and Internet for EVERYONE who needs or wants such access?

IF we did provide such assess for everyone…would that mean that the “very well off” would have to give up any part of their access to those things in any way?

Seventh:

Can we easily provide shelter…a place of abode…for EVERYONE, so that nobody has to live in the streets exposed to the elements?

If we do, will the “very well off” have to give up the homes they have?

Re: Questions to be considered:

Originally Posted by Squatch347

I would add a very important Eighth. Also a two parter?

Thanks for stopping by, Squatch. And a special thanks for the "addition." Whenever I have gone through this with anyone serious, the questions you are asking are always among the first...ranking up there with the inevitable, how are we going to pay...

Let me see if I can respond in a way you can live with for now.

How do you define the minimum standards listed above? What is "reasonable" transportation? What is a "decent" education? How much is "sufficient" medical care? etc.

I don't think it is necessary to define it...but if forced, I would mention what I would like it to be eventually...and what I see as possible without too much trouble if we would only stop thinking about the underlying problems the way we are.

Sufficient to me right now would be enough to get by the way a reasonable person would see as the minimum standard for someone living in a great, wealthy nation such as our own.

Here in New Jersey where I live and where the cost of living is extremely high...I would use "About the way one could live if one had access to $30,000 per year in today's dollars, in other words, a bare bones kind of existence.

I'd ultimately like to see it defined as considerably more than a $30,000 per year existence...something more akin to a $200,000 per year in today's dollars kind of existence.

Do we have sufficient resources available that we could produce all the goods and services to the defined minimums in 1-7 simultaneously?

Rather than letting this drag out too long...I'm posting one other (what I consider) germane question in a separate thread. We can discuss all of this stuff at the same time...with each issue being handled in different threads.

Squatch, SharmaK...I hope you stick with the topic. It has a long way to go, but I think it is interesting. And...there doesn't seem to be much else going on around here.

Re: Questions to be considered:

Originally Posted by Frank Apisa

Thanks for stopping by, Squatch. And a special thanks for the "addition." Whenever I have gone through this with anyone serious, the questions you are asking are always among the first...ranking up there with the inevitable, how are we going to pay...

I appreciate it, thank you. Credit should be given to you for proposing a topic that has the potential for interesting conversation too.

Originally Posted by Frank

Sufficient to me right now would be enough to get by the way a reasonable person would see as the minimum standard for someone living in a great, wealthy nation such as our own.

That seems to be a good start, but the devil is usually in the details.

I think it would be wise to set aside the moral issue that generally underlies a lot of these discussions (why should we accept your particular basket of goods for everyone, etc.) and focus rather on the more economic aspects if that is ok.

The economic problem I see with this is more of a "basket of goods" issue. Take food for example. How do we know how many oranges a person should recieve in order to satisfy the bare minimum for a healthy diet? What if a person doesn't like oranges and prefers their vitamin c via kiwi or something? How (or, in your model do we even need to) determine those kinds of allocations?

Originally Posted by Frank

YES, it is my opinion that we do.

Ok, then to channel Thomas Sowell's "there are no solutions, only tradeoffs." What exactly do you see us giving up in order to make that kind of production? [And at the risk of jumping the gun, so feel free to ignore it, how do we do so?]

Originally Posted by Frank Apisa

For the sake of this thread and this discussion, SharmaK, I want to limit ourselves just to the US.

Perhaps a too technical question, but what does that mean for trade? Assuming we are focusing our production on internal US consumption in the above, would we still be producing for export? If not, would we be able to import then? I ask because I think it is relatively germane to my question addition. If we aren't importing the total production capacity of the US shrinks dramatically as we lose the network effects of trade.

"Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire

"Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton

In fact, if we were able to recover all of our wasted food, we could provide a 2,000-calorie diet to 84% of the population, said Dr. Roni Neff, a Johns Hopkins University researcher who led a first-ever study examining the nutrients we're tossing in the trash.

My point, and I believe if I took more time I could show that regulations cause a lot of food loss in the U.S. right now, and then on top of that our cultural propensity for the disposable only adds to that.
So the counter question is, which of those do you change and how?

Originally Posted by OP

Second (they're all two parters):

Can we easily produce enough clothing (shirts, pants, dresses, underwear, socks, shoes, coats, and the like) so that EVERYONE could be fully and functionally clothed?

And if everyone were fully and functionally clothed…would that mean that the “very well off” would have to make do with less in the way of clothing?

Picture yourself with a trash bag of old clothes you’ve just cleaned out of your closet. You think you could get some money out of them, so you take them to a consignment or thrift store, or sell them via one of the new online equivalents, like ThredUp. But they’ll probably reject most of your old clothes, even the ones you paid dearly for, because of small flaws or no longer being in season. With fast fashion speeding up trends and shortening seasons, your clothing is quite likely dated if it’s more than a year old. Many secondhand stores will reject items from fast-fashion chains like Forever 21, H&M, Zara and Topshop. The inexpensive clothing is poor quality, with low resale value, and there’s just too much of it.

Again, there is better research to be done. I just watched a documentary on netflix that dealt with the mounds of good usable clothing that is put in landfills overseas, because no one wants them.
larger point. We throw away enough cloths to cloth everyone. (granted not in fashion.. but as the article says after a year it is out of fashion).

.. so there are the first two.
Yes, we can and do produce enough, but we throw it away.
counter question how do you propose to change that ?

Last edited by Squatch347; January 30th, 2018 at 05:48 AM.
Reason: Tag edit

Re: Questions to be considered:

My point, and I believe if I took more time I could show that regulations cause a lot of food loss in the U.S. right now, and then on top of that our cultural propensity for the disposable only adds to that.
So the counter question is, which of those do you change and how?

Again, yes we do. And like the first it is also the fact that most of it goes into the trash. http://www.newsweek.com/2016/09/09/o...is-494824.html
[QUOT=LINK] Picture yourself with a trash bag of old clothes you’ve just cleaned out of your closet. You think you could get some money out of them, so you take them to a consignment or thrift store, or sell them via one of the new online equivalents, like ThredUp. But they’ll probably reject most of your old clothes, even the ones you paid dearly for, because of small flaws or no longer being in season. With fast fashion speeding up trends and shortening seasons, your clothing is quite likely dated if it’s more than a year old. Many secondhand stores will reject items from fast-fashion chains like Forever 21, H&M, Zara and Topshop. The inexpensive clothing is poor quality, with low resale value, and there’s just too much of it.

Again, there is better research to be done. I just watched a documentary on netflix that dealt with the mounds of good usable clothing that is put in landfills overseas, because no one wants them.
larger point. We throw away enough cloths to cloth everyone. (granted not in fashion.. but as the article says after a year it is out of fashion).

.. so there are the first two.
Yes, we can and do produce enough, but we throw it away.
counter question how do you propose to change that ?

I'm of the school that says that I should change things I think requiring change IF I CAN...and accept the fact that there are many things that require changing THAT I CANNOT.

I'm not going to change that waste...but I hope we elect people who can impact significantly on it. And I am going to effort toward change that will make things fairer in this world.

That, Mind, is what I am about here and now.

We are going to continue to throw away food...and it has less to do with regulations (which I considered your actual point) than with laziness. As a nation, we have beyond the rich kid with so many toys...the ones lost or broken simply do not matter.

Re: Questions to be considered:

Well, my overall point is that there are direct answers to most of your questions in the positive.
In that, yes we currently do produce enough to feed and cloth the people of the U.S.

I think on the medical front, the answer is also yes that we COULD, but we have set the education bar unecissarily high for many medical skills.

As to the food being thrown away, I'm not really talking only about individuals. There is a systemic trashing of food. My dad goes to the tomato farms and buys tomatoes by the 5gallon bucket. There is a giant line where tomatos pass by like I love lucy at the chocolate factory. Then it goes into dump trucks, to be trashed. The reasoning is they are not the right size.

So, the problem is not on the production side. .. To that, and I'm not putting you on the spot or anything, the question is what do we or can we do about it? How can we get perfectly good tomatos that are currently produced, into the hands of those that need them?...because having enough is not the problem. The second is, who is going to pay for it.

Re: Questions to be considered:

We're on the same page, Mind...the waste of food on all levels is a problem that has dealt with. But a discussion of that is for a different, not too distant moment.

Very soon it will become apparent that I am more interested in presenting an alternative to the many economic problems we pretend we are dealing with...and that the "alternative" will be a more manageable, easier problem...and one that actually has a chance at being solved.

I'm not going to be the one to solve it...I will not even offer reasonable means of solving it. My efforts will be toward getting the philosophical concept of the problem changed from our focus today...to what I suggest our focus should be (starting yesterday.)

If you haven't responded to the thread I created after this one...please take a look and say something...anything.

I have only one more question after that before I lay out a preliminary view of where I am heading.

Here is a link to the new question...which may seem like an idle one...but it is hugely important.